Riccardi v. Lynch et al
Filing
411
ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 337 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 367 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 378 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 380 Administrative Motion to Fi le Under Seal; denying 390 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 398 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 401 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 404 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
12 LITIGATION
11
No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB
13
ORDER DENYING PENDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
14
15
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS
/
16
17
This litigation now having been resolved, the Court must determine which documents,
18
or portions thereof, should remain permanently shielded from public view. The Court has
19
received numerous motions to seal certain portions of documents which number in the
20
thousands of pages, most of which are heavily or entirely redacted. Specifically, the Court
21
now has before it the following pending motions: Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion
22
to File Under Seal (dkt. 337); Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
23
(dkt. 367); Objector A.J. Copeland’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 378);
24
Objector Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 380); Objectors
25
A.J. Copeland’s and Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 390);
26
Hewlett Packard’s Objection re Unsealing in Part of Consolidated Shareholder Derivative
27
Complaint; Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 398);
28
Directors’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 401); and Objector Harriet
Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 404).
1
For the following reasons, all pending motions to seal are hereby DENIED. As an
2
initial matter, XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a series of conditions discussed
3
previously at a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10 (dkt. 178) at 7. However,
4
Magistrate Judge Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan based on the
5
Government’s representations that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would immediately
6
be taken into United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody
7
pursuant to an outstanding immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See id. This
8
Court disagrees that the existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order of
9
removal, or the risk that Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
deny Stepanyan bail under the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail
11
determination to Magistrate Judge Corley in light of this opinion.
12
It has also not escaped the Court’s attention that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
13
XXXX subject of one or more immigration detainers issued in the last few days or weeks in
14
connection with the instant offense. See Transcript July 10 at 3–4, 6–8. In its reply to
15
Stepanyan’s appeal, the Government contends—apparently for the first time—that Stepanyan
16
has an extant warrant of removal issued on or about June 8, 2001 based on the fact that he is
17
an aggravated felon by virtue of his prior conviction for health care fraud. See Gov’t
18
Response (dkt. 199) at 5.According to the Government, the fact that Stepanyan may be taken
19
into immigration custody if released by this Court disqualifies him from release. But
20
Congress begs to differ. The Government’s argument skips over—without a single word
21
about—“the very statute in which Congress reconciles the release and detention statutes
22
with the administrative deportation statutes.” See United States v. Adomako, 150 F. Supp.
23
2d 1302, 1307 (M.D. Fl. 2001); see generally Gov’t Response. In fact, “Congress expressly
24
instructs this Court to disregard the laws governing release in INS deportation proceedings
25
when it determines the propriety of release or detention of a deportable alien pending trial.”
26
Adomako, 150 F. Supp. 2d at 1307. Under Section 3142(d) of the Bail Reform Act, “if the
27
court determines that the defendant is not a United States citizen or a lawfully admitted
28
permanent resident and may flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community, it
2
1
shall detain him for no more than ten days and direct the government’s attorney to notify the
2
appropriate immigration official. If such official does not take the defendant into custody
3
during that ten day period, the defendant ‘shall be treated in accordance with the other
4
provisions of this section, notwithstanding the applicability of other provisions of law
5
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=
6
Moreover, XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a
7
series of conditions discussed previously at a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10
8
(dkt. 178) at 7. However, Magistrate Judge Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan
9
based on the Government’s representations that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
immediately be taken into United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
11
custody pursuant to an outstanding immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See
12
id. This Court disagrees that the existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order
13
of removal, or the risk that Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to
14
deny Stepanyan bail under the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail
15
determination to Magistrate Judge Corley in light of this opinion.
16
In that same vein, XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a series of
17
conditions discussed previously at a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10 (dkt. 178) at
18
7. However, Magistrate Judge Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan based on the
19
Government’s representations that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would immediately
20
be taken into United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody
21
pursuant to an outstanding immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See id. This
22
Court disagrees that the existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order of
23
removal, or the risk that Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to
24
deny Stepanyan bail under the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail
25
determination to Magistrate Judge Corley in light of this opinion. XXXXXXXXXXXXX
26
XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a series of conditions discussed previously at
27
a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10 (dkt. 178) at 7. However, Magistrate Judge
28
Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan based on the Government’s representations
3
1
that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would immediately be taken into United States
2
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody pursuant to an outstanding
3
immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See id. This Court disagrees that the
4
existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order of removal, or the risk that
5
Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to deny Stepanyan bail under
6
the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail determination to Magistrate
7
Judge Corley in light of this opinion.
8
For the foregoing reasons, the pending administrative motions to seal are DENIED.1
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated: July 28, 2015
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
No motion for reconsideration will be entertained unless HP identifies within three days “a
limited amount of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection” under the
“compelling reasons” standard of Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th
Cir. 2006), outlined by page and line number and including “specific factual findings” for each. See
O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. c-13-3826-EMC, 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27,
2015). In light of the “public interest in understanding the judicial process” as it relates to the settlement
of these claims, the Court will not countenance arguments that public filing would put HP at a
competitive or legal disadvantage. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?